Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 18, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pornography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Although the prohibition of such material on paper seems to be apart of law in many places such as Australia, UK and Canada, would it often more than not be arguably seen as de facto legal considering how it often it is unenforced by law? I hear that for the most part many such material is often all across sites like rule 34 and other hentai sites. Especially considering what is considered "legal" and "depicting a character of a certain age" is often extremely vague such as when no age is specified in said fictional material. Examples would be many hentais of animes that take place in high schools. By that logic most hentai would fall under the "depicting minors pornography" law. And I don't really hear many stories of people being arrested for such material. - 11:04 AM, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Canada and UK are very active in that regards. Someone in the UK took a plea deal and went to a psychiatry for a year to avoid prison. I would not advise to risk anything. PayaBones (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully submit that it doesn't matter how many people get away with it, because the law allows any person in possession of it to be indicted and prosecuted, if a law enforcement officer chooses (selective as it may be) to attack her. Such arbitrary and capricious legal action is quite unfortunate but that's another story; politically one may prefer that a man be free to see what he wishes, but that is not what the United States, etc., is doing. Al Begamut (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really illegal? I'm curious. I was checking because last time I saw it I was sure it was only for images which were too much realistic, like photos or deepfakes. So I checked and what I found is this: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/la-rilevanza-penale-dei-fumetti-pedopornografici_13-07-2017.php

Specifically there is a part that says: Ciò significa che, per rilevare sul piano penale, l'immagine pedopornografica virtuale, che può essere anche un fumetto o un cartone animato, deve avere una qualità rappresentativa "tale da far apparire come accadute o realizzabili nella realtà e quindi vere, ovvero verosimili, situazioni non reali, ossia frutto di immaginazione di attività sessuali coinvolgenti bambini/e". Diversamente, se l'immagine pedopornografica virtuale per la sua grossolanità e rozzezza non ha la forza in concreto di rappresentare un minore in carne ed ossa, essa sfuggirà all'applicazione dell'art. 600 quater 1 cp.

Which translated in English should be something like this: This means that, to be relevant on the penal matter, the pedopornographic virtual image, that can also be a comic or a cartoon, must be of such rappresentative quality that "it has to make appear as happened or able to happen and as such real, and as such plausible, situation not real, fruit of immagination of sexual activites concerning children" On the other hand, if the pedoporngraphic image, for its grossness and coarsness, it doesn't have the power to rappresent a minor in flesh and bones, it will not incur the application of the art 600 quater 1 cp.

And also this: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/10/28/dei-delitti-contro-la-persona

Specifically the part that says: Art. 600-quater.1.

Pornografia virtuale. (1) Le disposizioni di cui agli articoli 600-ter e 600-quater si applicano anche quando il materiale pornografico rappresenta immagini virtuali realizzate utilizzando immagini di minori degli anni diciotto o parti di esse, ma la pena è diminuita di un terzo. Per immagini virtuali si intendono immagini realizzate con tecniche di elaborazione grafica non associate in tutto o in parte a situazioni reali, la cui qualità di rappresentazione fa apparire come vere situazioni non reali. (1) Questo articolo è stato inserito dall’art. 4 della L. 6 febbraio 2006, n. 38

Which translated should be something like this: Article 600-quater.1.

Virtual pornography. (1) The provisions of articles 600-ter and 600-quater also apply when the pornographic material represents virtual images created using images of minors under the age of eighteen or parts thereof, but the penalty is reduced by one third. By virtual images we mean images created with graphic processing techniques not associated in whole or in part with real situations, whose representation quality makes non-real situations appear as real. (1) This article was inserted by the art. 4 of Law 6 February 2006, n. 38

So, from what I read, it seemed like the law remained the same and so I don't think Italy should be in the section which declares it illegal but either in the grey area or in the legal area, according to the fact if the prohibition of too realistic images put in the former category or not. But again, I could of course be wrong, so I'm asking also if someone else can confirm. 84.220.201.133 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly in the "cases" subsection, it appears to me that "virtual child pornography" is illegal, at least federally, in the U.S. I would move the U.S. from "grey area" to the "illegal" section. Arguments against? Al Begamut (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grey area because per the Ashcroft ruling, such content is not automatically illegal (it is not legally CSEM) but must be found obscene to be legal. There conceivably might be content that is found to be not obscene. Sandtalon (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandtalon: In my opinion, this list should be redirected to Legality of child pornography as there is sourced information there which conflicts with information given here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which information is conflicting? It's always possible to update the article. I think it's useful to have a dedicated page to elaborate on the issue, which the other page provides in condensed summary form. Sandtalon (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is about virtual child pornography; it, per se, will always be obscene (actually this depends of course on "local community standards" but), and therefore virtual CP is always illegal in the US. ? Al Begamut (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that simply the content needing a "case-by-case" review of the Miller Test is not enough to make it a "gray area".

Other laws in the Gray Area category have "It could be", "Photorealistic", "Could be mistaken for", generally exceptions or nebulous wording that leads it into question.

There is no such question for the US law, it is very certain and unquestionable about it's message.

The US law should be moved into the Illegal category, but I do like the idea of preserving the history of the law somewhere. MagiTagi (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Mexico, I oppose the current interpretation of the law in the referenced article[1] utilized as source for the entry Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors#Mexico in which the subject makes use of the incorrect translation of the word "simulados" which translates to "pretend" as an incorrect "fictional" definition, the truthful interpretation with the right translation only condemns, in addition to real acts, an act of pretending with human individuals bearer of rights, where real life is the context of real and pretend and both crimes involve abuse of a real life victim.

There is no mention of fictional media, because it is not taken into consideration in the application of the law, and it is already protected under freedom of ideas (which is not the same as freedom of expression of the first amendment) which guarantees our individual rights to information in any shape or form [2] [3] [4]

While this does not actually change the actual legal situation and has no weight on court, it gives an erroneous impression of the country's legal status regarding pornographic media. Bunny Cinnamony (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 court rulings (the most recent one is dated 2021) have noticed the double standard between fictional and real child pornography and stated that either fictional child pornography have the same punishment of real child pornography or either the crime of consuming fictional child pornography does not amount to a criminal act and seeing it as such with this particular double standard may suggest a flawed justice system.

The more detailed explaination of the sentence here:

https://www.penaledp.it/il-concorso-tra-pedopornografia-reale-e-virtuale-una-recente-sentenza-del-gup-di-palermo-applica-il-ne-bis-in-idem/

Even the senteces where fictional child pornography was deemed a potential crime they states that the fictional content displayed should be almost undistinguishable or potentially mistakable for a real photograph (and this from a court ruling of 2017)

http://www.salvisjuribus.it/la-giurisprudenza-alle-prese-con-lo-spinoso-reato-di-pedopornografia-virtuale-si-vuole-punire-il-fatto-o-lautore/

Because of that, i would advise to edit italy in legal or grey area at least. Veracnas (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it depends on if the content is indistinguishable from reality, this'd put it near other laws in the Gray area that say the same thing.

Vera is correct here. MagiTagi (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors → Legal status of fictional child pornography – I am making a move request as User:EggRoll97 has reverted my move using with the basis of WP:RMUM.

According to WP:RMUM; Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply: No article exists at the new target title; 'There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.' & 'If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself.'

My move was done on the basis of WP:CONCISE & WP:PRECISE, as 'child pornography' is much shorter and more concise than 'pornography depicting minors', & the page for Child pornography is not titled 'Pornography depicting minors', or maybe rename it to 'Legal status of simulated child pornography', To fit with the aforementioned article.

Why would you object to this? Formerlychucks (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The requested move has been reformatted to be an actual RM instead of a talk page discussion. For verification, the user's original post can be found here under "Article should be moved to 'Legal status of fictional child pornography'". EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i didn't know how to do it myself, i also apologize for seeming confrontational. Formerlychucks (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, WikiProject Pornography, and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per WP:CONSISTENT with Legality of child pornography and Child pornography. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A descriptive and more neutral title. It does not have to be consistent since it is not about the same topic. --User82828 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]